Ramdas Gulab Modak v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date:

2026.04.02 18:03:49 +0530 RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6576 OF 2025 Ramdas Gulab Modak

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Respondent

Mr. Priyal G. Sarda for the Petitioner.

Ms. Supriya Kak, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. Mr. Sandeep Bhajibhakare, DCP attached to Special Branch, Pune City, present.

Mr. Chetan Thorbole, API, attached to Special Branch, Pune City, present.

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 30 th MARCH, 2026 P.C. :

1.

The petitioner had approached this Court for directions to the respondents - Police Authorities i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Pune City and Senior Police Inspector, Loni 1/6

Kalbhor Police Station, Pune, to provide Police protection to him. 2.

Heard learned Counsel Mr. Priyal G. Sarda for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P, Ms. Supriya Kak, for the Respondent - State.

3.

Brief background of this petition is as follows: The petitioner, his brother - Laxman and his friend - Hemant Gaikwad were assaulted on 19th February, 2015 with deadly weapons. C.R.No. 55 of 2015 was registered at Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune, under Sections 307, 326, 325, 341, 506(1), 143, 147, 148, 149 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation resulted in Sessions Case No.428 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Court at Pune. In the meantime, the petitioner's friend - Hemant Gaikwad, who was the injured witness in C.R.No. 55 of 2015 of Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune, was murdered on 9th September, 2015. It is the case of the petitioner that the offence was committed by the same accused who had committed the offence in connection with 2/6

C.R.No.55 of 2015. In respect of murder of Hemant Gaikwad, C.R.No. 338 of 2015 was registered at Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune, on 9th September, 2015 under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the provisions of MCOCA were applied and the trial was conducted as MCOCA Spl.Case NO.6 of 2016 before the Additional Special Judge under MCOC Act, Pune. The accused were acquitted in that case. However, the Sessions Case No. 428 of 2017 arising out of C.R.No. 55 of 2015 is still pending. The petitioner is an injured eye-witness and therefore, his evidence would be important in that case. His evidence is yet to be recorded. 4.

The petitioner was given Police protection since 10th September, 2015. Initially, it was upto 18th December, 2019. After Police protection was removed, there was incident of firing at his house and therefore, another offence vide C.R.No. 910 of 2019 was registered at the same Police Station on 25th December, 2019. Because of that, the petitioner was given Police protection from 28th December, 2019 which continued till 17th October, 2024. Again it was removed 3/6

between the period from 18th October, 2024 to 8th January, 2025. After that, again the Police protection was given till 31st March, 2025 but since then, no Police protection was given to him. 5.

The petitioner entered into correspondence with and made applications to the Police Authorities for continuation of his Police protection. His request was rejected and he was informed accordingly vide a letter dated 23rd August, 2025, sent under the signature of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Pune City. 6.

In this background, the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his apprehension is not baseless. In the past, his friend - Hemant Gaikwad who was an injured eye-witness, in connection with C.R.No. 55 of 2015 was murdered. Though that case resulted in acquittal, the appeal against acquittal is preferred and it is admitted by this Court. More importantly, his evidence is not yet recorded in Sessions Case No. 428 of 2017 and therefore, threat to his life still continues 4/6

because according to the petitioner, the accused do not want him to depose against them in the trial. He submitted that Police themselves were satisfied about the genuineness of his apprehension and he was given Police protection for a long period of almost 10 years and therefore, there is no reason, as to why it should not be continued looking at the past history.

7.

In response to these submissions, learned Addl.PP took specific instructions from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Pune City and on instructions, she made a statement that for the time-being, the petitioner shall be given Police protection till his evidence is recorded in Sessions Case No. 428 of 2017 before the Court of Sessions at Pune. After his evidence is recorded, the Police Authorities will review the situation and will decide whether to continue the Police protection and for how long it is to be continued. The statement made before the Court by the learned Addl.P.P, on instructions, is recorded and accepted.

5/6

8.

In view of the statement, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage, reserving his rights to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, in case the necessity arises in future.

9.

Considering both these submissions, the petition is disposed of as not pressed, based on the submissions made by the learned Addl.PP before the Court today.

SANDESH D. PATIL, J.

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

6/6